Beginning October 2007 the AOC will post opinions only as PDF files. We no longer post Word Perfect or other word processing files. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here to go to the Adobe site and download the FREE Acrobat Reader.
This Page Last Updated: November 08, 2007 at 10:52.49 hours
The following Opinions are available for viewing or download in PDF format:
Cases posted the week of 12/24/2007
Aaron Burton vs. Howard Carlton, Warden - E2007-01319-CCA-R3-HC View
Johnson County - The Petitioner, Aaron Burton, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 1997, the Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder and received a sixteen-year sentence. The main focus of the Petitioner’s argument is that his judgment is void because at the time of his conviction, second degree murder was not a lesser-included offense of felony murder. In two prior decisions of this Court, we addressed this precise claim of the Petitioner and determined it to be without merit. We affirm the order summarily dismissing the petition.
State vs. Oshia Lynn Starnes, aka Oshia Lynn Baffa, aka Oshia Lynn Boffa -
E2007-00197-CCA-R3-CD View
Sullivan County - The appellant, Oshia Lynn Starnes, a/k/a Oshia Lynn Baffa, a/k/a Oshia Lynn Boffa, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to two counts each of identity theft, forgery, and misdemeanor theft and agreed to an effective sentence of four years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve her effective sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying her request for alternative sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. James Paul Hurt - M2006-02381-CCA-R3-CD View
Marshall County - James Paul Hurt, the defendant, was convicted of selling .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance and also of delivering the same substance. Both are Class B felonies. These convictions were merged, and the defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years confinement. On appeal, the defendant avers that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts, and (2) the physical restraints placed on the defendant during trial violated his constitutional rights. After review, we have concluded that the evidence was sufficient and that the restraints and safeguards imposed were reasonable under the circumstances and constitutionally permissible. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
State vs. Charles Curtis - W2006-02347-CCA-R3-CD
View
Shelby County - A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Charles Curtis, of second degree murder and aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of thirty-six years and sixteen years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the appellant and one of his codefendants to be tried jointly; (3) the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to sequester the jury; (4) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs of the victim’s eyes into evidence; (5) his sentences are excessive; and (6) the cumulative effect of these errors denied him the right to a fair trial and due process. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Dana Woods - W2006-00657-CCA-R3-CD View
Madison County - The Defendant, Dana Keith Woods, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court merged the convictions for first degree premeditated murder and felony murder and also merged the convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus fifty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of the victim; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct on voluntary intoxication; and (4) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Following a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences.
Cases posted the week of 12/17/2007
State vs. James Davis - W2006-02708-CCA-R3-PC View
Tipton County - The petitioner, James Davis, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of felony murder and aggravated robbery and received consecutive sentences of life without parole and twenty years. This court affirmed the petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. James Robert Davis, No. W2003-02362-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 452569, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 24, 2005), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Aug. 22, 2005). In 2006, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After reviewing the record and finding no error, we affirm that order.
Michael McKillip vs. Jim Morrow, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary and the State -
E2007-01225-CCA-R3-HC View
Bledsoe County - The pro se petitioner, Michael L. McKillip, appeals as of right the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted of aggravated sexual battery pursuant to his guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court and received a sentence of fifteen years as a Range II offender to be served at one hundred percent. He alleges that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the trial court erroneously allowed him to plead outside his range and because the 1989 Criminal Sentencing Reform Act violates the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Earl Vantrease, Jr. vs. Wayne Brandon, Warden - M2006-02414-CCA-R3-HC View
Hickman County - The Petitioner has filed a Petition for Rehearing to have this Court reconsider its opinion previously filed in this case. This Court held that the Petitioner had stated a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, but we affirmed summary dismissal due to the Petitioner’s failure to attach the requisite documentation in support of his claim that the judgment was void. The Petitioner has now provided further documents in support of his claim. The Petition for Rehearing is granted.
State vs. Mario C. Gray a/k/a Ricky Fletcher - M2006-00398-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - In 2004, Appellant, Mario C. Gray, was initially indicted for aggravated robbery. Appellant was later reindicted for aggravated robbery and attempted first degree murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted of aggravated robbery and felony reckless endangerment. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years for aggravated robbery and two years for reckless endangerment. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant sought resolution of the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aggravated robbery and reckless endangerment; (2) whether the convictions for aggravated robbery and reckless endangerment violate double jeopardy; (3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow the appellant to impeach the victim with evidence of prior bad acts; (4) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that felony reckless endangerment was a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder; and (5) whether the trial court properly sentenced the appellant. We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to allow Appellant to impeach the victim’s testimony with proof of prior bad acts but deem the errors harmless. Further, even though the trial court improperly applied enhancement factors to Appellant’s sentence, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. Additionally, we conclude that: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, because we determine that felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder and Appellant’s failure to object did not constitute consent to amend the indictment to add reckless endangerment, we vacate Appellant’s conviction for reckless endangerment and remand the case to the trial court.
State vs. Jimmy Cantrell - M2007-00048-CCA-R3-CD View
Rutherford County - Appellant, Jimmy Cantrell, pled guilty to two counts of sale of cocaine. He was sentenced to serve ninety days of the sentence in incarceration prior to being released to probation. Later, Appellant pled guilty to a new charge of sale of cocaine. Appellant’s probation was revoked. Appellant was sentenced on the new charge, and the trial court suspended the sentence after the service of a certain number of days and furloughed Appellant to the Rutherford County Drug Court Program. Subsequently, Appellant was discharged from the program for violating its terms and conditions.The trial court then entered an order terminating Appellant’s furlough and ordering Appellant to serve his sentences in their entirety. Appellant sought credit for time served in the Drug Court Program. The trial court denied the request. Appellant now appeals the trial court’s decision denying his request for credit for time served in the Drug Court Program. Because an appeal of the denial of a motion to award jail credit is not a proper ground for appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b), we dismiss the appeal.
Danny Ray Meeks vs. James Fortner, Warden - M2007-01472-CCA-R3-HC View
Hickman County - Petitioner, Danny Ray Meeks, was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and extortion. State v. Meeks, 867 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. Crim. App.1993). He was sentenced to twenty (20) years for aggravated kidnapping, twenty (20) years for especially aggravated robbery, fifteen (15) years for aggravated burglary, and eight (8) years for extortion. The sentences for aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, and extortion were ordered to be served consecutively to each other, with the sentence for aggravated burglary to be served concurrently with the other sentences, for a total effective sentence of forty-eight (48) years. Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief which was summarily dismissed by the trial court. He timely appealed, and the State has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee for this case to be affirmed by memorandum opinion. Petitioner filed a reply brief in opposition to the State’s motion. Having considered the entire record, we conclude that the State’s motion should be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Maro R. Perkins vs. Cherry Lindamood, Warden - M2007-00698-CCA-R3-HC View
Wayne County - The petitioner, Mario R. Perkins, filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his convictions and sentences for second degree murder and aggravated robbery are illegal and void. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner did not make a valid claim of illegality and voidness. On appeal, the petitioner challenges this ruling. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.
State vs. Joe Brown - W2007-00693-CCA-R3-CD View
Madison County - The defendant, Joe Allen Brown, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of under .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell and/or deliver and was sentenced in the Madison County Circuit Court to an effective four year term to be served in a community corrections program. On March 16, 2007 the court revoked the community corrections sentence and resentenced the defendant to serve six years in the Department of Correction. From that order, the defendant appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment below.
State vs. Hezekiah Cooper - W2005-02481-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - Appellant, Hezekiah Cooper, was convicted of four counts of attempt to commit second degree murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of possession of a firearm. As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sixty-year sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred “in refusing to allow Appellant to argue alternative theories” at trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit exculpatory evidence; (4) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on lesser included offenses; (5) whether Appellant’s sentences were excessive; and (6) whether the trial court erred by ordering Appellant to serve his sentences consecutively. After reviewing the issues, we determine that: (1) Appellant waived the issue regarding lesser included offenses for failing to request instructions at trial; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to admit exculpatory evidence; (3) Appellant waived several evidentiary issues by raising them for the first time on appeal; and (4) the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. However, we determine that the evidence was only sufficient to support two convictions for attempted second degree murder with respect to the actions against Ms. Thompson and her daughter Tanisha. Therefore, we reverse and dismiss the two remaining convictions for attempted second degree murder. Further, we determine that the evidence supports only one conviction for aggravated robbery because there was only one theft from the victims’ residence of property that was owned by Mr. Norfleet. However, we modify the conviction for aggravated robbery with respect to Jeraldrika Thompson to a conviction for aggravated assault and remand to the trial court for sentencing on that count. However, we are unable to modify the two remaining convictions for aggravated robbery with respect to the actions taken against Ms. Thompson and Tanisha Thompson to aggravated assault because double jeopardy principles prohibit dual convictions for attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault. Accordingly, the convictions for aggravated robbery with respect to Ms. Thompson and Tanisha Thompson are reversed and dismissed. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Timothy Frazier - W2007-00692-CCA-R3-CD View
Madison County - The defendant, Timothy Frazier, pled guilty to one count of theft of property more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion and ordered him to serve a two-year, suspended sentence on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion should be reversed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for reconsideration.
State vs. Dorothea Annette Jones - E2006-02469-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - The Appellant, Dorothea Annette Jones, appeals the Blount County Circuit Court’s revocation of her probation. Jones entered guilty pleas in the general sessions court to the misdemeanor offenses of possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court suspended the imposed eleven month and twenty-nine day sentences and placed Jones on supervised probation. The suspended sentences were subsequently revoked by the sessions court, and Jones appealed the revocations to the circuit court. At the circuit level, Jones entered into a consent order admitting to violations of her probation. The order of the circuit court further provided for reinstatement of Jones’ probationary status and for extension of her probationary period. The case was then re-docketed in the circuit court, with the circuit court retaining supervision and control of Jones’ probation. A second violation warrant against Jones was later filed in the circuit court. A subsequent revocation hearing was held in the circuit court, after which the court revoked the suspended sentences based upon Jones’ continued use of cocaine, failure to report, failure to pay costs, and failure to maintain employment. On appeal, Jones asserts that the circuit court erred in revoking her sentences because the evidence was not sufficient to establish that she willfully violated the terms of her probation. Following plain error review, we conclude that the circuit court was without the authority to maintain supervision of, or jurisdiction over, Jones’ probationary sentences, as it remained in the general sessions court. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order of revocation and remand to the circuit court.
State vs. Scott Eric McDonald - E2006-02568-CCA-R3-CD View
Hamblen County - The Appellant, Scott Eric McDonald, presents for review a certified question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A). McDonald pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and, as a condition of his guilty plea, reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to support the initial stop of his vehicle. On appeal, the State asserts that McDonald failed to properly reserve his certified question, and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Following review, we agree that the certified question of law was not properly reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Bronzo
Gosnell vs. Howard Carlton, Warden - E2007-01569-CCA-R3-HC View
Johnson County - The pro se petitioner, Bronzo
Gosnell, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary
dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner
was convicted by a Greene County jury of second degree murder
and sentenced to twenty-five years. He alleges that he is entitled
to habeas corpus relief because his sentence was imposed in
contravention to the United States Supreme Court’s holding
in Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).
The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failure
to state a cognizable claim. Following our review, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Steven Christopher Hixon, Alias - E2007-00221-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County - The appellant, Steven Christopher
Hixon (alias), appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s
order denying his motion to receive pretrial jail credit. The
appellant contends that, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated
section 40-23-101, the trial court erred by not applying pretrial
jail credit to his sentences for aggravated burglary and theft.
Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs,
we conclude that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to
rule on the appellant’s
motion because the proper avenue for relief regarding the application
of his pretrial jail credit is through the Uniform Administrative
Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4-5-101 to
-325. Consequently, we vacate the trial court’s order
denying the appellant’s motion. We dismiss the appeal.
State vs. Billy R. Shelley - E2007-00807-CCA-R3-CD View
Sullivan County - In December 2003, a Sullivan
County jury convicted the defendant of theft of property over
$1,000, a class D felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range
II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction.
This court affirmed the defendant’s
conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Billy R. Shelley,
No. E2004-00145-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 7 (Tenn. Crim. App. July
29, 2005), app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2005). In February 2007,
the trial court entered an order granting the defendant post-conviction
relief and the right to file a delayed motion for new trial
and a delayed appeal. The trial court denied the motion for
a new trial, and this appeal follows. On appeal, the defendant
alleges that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay
statements into evidence during the defendant’s trial.
After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Cases posted the week of 12/10/2007
State vs. Verico Jackson - W2006-00502-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The Appellant, Verico Dewayne
Jackson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial
of his petition for post-conviction relief. Jackson, who was
convicted of first degree murder, is currently serving a sentence
of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal,
he argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the
effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial
counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to adequately communicate
with Jackson and the investigator assigned to the case, resulting
in a lack of preparation for trial; (2) failing to seek a severance
in the case; and (3) failing to request and argue for certain
lesser-included offense instructions. After review, the judgment
of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. Tony Samuel - W2006-00090-CCA-R3-CD - (CORRECTED OPINION) View
Lauderdale County - The defendant was indicted
for one count of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated
kidnapping of his live-in girlfriend’s fourteen-year-old, mentally-challenged daughter. A jury convicted the defendant of both indicted offenses. The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty-five years for the aggravated rape and eighteen years for the aggravated kidnapping to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to a previous sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing questions to jurors in voir dire regarding mental retardation; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding the victim’s
I.Q. test scores and capabilities; (4) that the trial court
erred in allowing testimony by a State witness regarding statements
of the victim; (5) that the trial court erred in allowing testimony
from a lay witness regarding recency and appearance of the injury
to the victim; (6) that the trial court erred in determining
that the victim was competent to testify; and (7) that the trial
court erred in sentencing the defendant to an enhanced and consecutive
sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.
Earl Vantrease, Jr. vs. Wayne Brandon, Warden - M2006-02414-CCA-R3-HC View
Hickman County - The Petitioner has filed a
Petition for Rehearing to have this Court reconsider its opinion
previously filed in this case. This Court held that the Petitioner
had stated a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, but
we affirmed summary dismissal due to the Petitioner’s
failure to attach the requisite documentation in support of
his claim that the judgment was void. The Petitioner has now
provided further documents in support of his claim. The Petition
for Rehearing is granted.
Dwight Blake vs. State - M2007-00558-CCA-R3-PC View
Lincoln County - The defendant, Dwight Blake,
appeals the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post conviction DNA testing. See T.C.A. § 40-30-301
(2006). The defendant claims his counsel at trial failed to
inform him of the DNA results, and he now requests an opportunity
to re-test his DNA results. Finding no abuse of discretion,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Corey Lamont Radley vs. State - M2007-00462-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - A Davidson County jury convicted
the Petitioner, Corey Lamont Radley, of second degree murder,
and the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to twenty-five
years in prison.The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction
relief claiming that he received the ineffective assistance
of counsel, and the post-conviction court dismissed the petition
after a hearing. The Petitioner appeals the dismissal, contending
that his trial counsel was ineffective for not calling a witness
at his motion for a new trial hearing who would have testified
that he overheard jurors in the Petitioner’s case improperly discussing the Petitioner’s
case. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law,
we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Nathan Mork Miller - M2007-00975-CCA-R3-HC View
Davidson County - This matter is before the
Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.The Petitioner appeals the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas court was correct and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s
motion is granted and the judgment of the habeas court is affirmed.
Rodney Smith vs. State - M2007-00707-CCA-R3-HC View
Wayne County - The Appellant, Rodney Smith, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Sammy Morrison - M2007-00939-CCA-R3-CD View
Grundy County - A Grundy County jury convicted the Defendant, Sammy Morrison, of driving under the influence and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but forty hours suspended for the DUI and to five days, suspended, for the resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Clarence W. Carter vs. State - M2006-02285-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The petitioner, Clarence
W. Carter, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial and at his sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’briefs,
the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction
relief is affirmed.
Jason Wayne Rogers vs. Cherry Lindamood, Warden - M2007-00708-CCA-R3-HC View
Wayne County - The petitioner, Jason Wayne
Rogers, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily dismissing his prose petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court’s
order.
Eric T. Armstrong vs. State - M2007-01393-CCA-R3-PC View
Williamson County - The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant has presented a new claim on appeal. The Court concludes that the claim is waived due to Appellant's failure to raise it in his petition below. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Reginald Anthony Laye - M2006-02020-CCA-R3-CD View
Bedford County - Appellant, Reginald Anthony Laye, pled guilty to evading arrest and criminal impersonation prior to a jury trial, during which he was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court merged the two convictions for possession into one conviction for possession of a Schedule II drug for resale. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of ten years and six months. After the denial of a motion for new trial and the filing of a timely notice of appeal, Appellant argues in this Court that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Timothy Azbill - W2007-00086-CCA-R3-CD View
Decatur County - The defendant, Timothy Ray
Azbill, was found guilty by a Decatur County jury of aggravated
burglary, rape of a child, and especially aggravated kidnapping,
and received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the
Department of Correction. The defendant challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court’s application of sentencing enhancement factors. After review, we conclude that the defendant’s
claims are without merit and affirm the judgments. However,
we additionally conclude that, as to the convictions for rape
of a child and especially aggravated kidnapping, the court began
at the midpoint of the range, rather than the minimum as required,
and, therefore, remand for resentencing as to those two offenses.
State vs. John Britt - W2006-01210-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, John Britt,
appeals as of right his jury convictions in Shelby County Criminal
Court for two counts of solicitation of first degree murder.
The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of ten years as
a Range I, standard offender for each count, resulting in a
total effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, he asserts
that the trial court committed plain error in its admission
of allegedly improper testimony, in failing to declare a mistrial
due to improper behavior by the prosecutors during the trial,
and in failing to adequately instruct the jury after the defendant
was improperly impeached regarding a prior bad act. He also
asserts that the trial court improperly overruled the defendant’s objection to testimony and commented on the evidence in the presence of the jury. Finally, he urges this court to find plain error in the trial court’s sentencing for multiple reasons, including allegations that the imposition of the enhanced length and consecutive manner of service violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions for solicitation of first degree murder but conclude that the trial court’s
imposition of sentences beyond the presumptive minimum violated
Blakely. Therefore, upon remand, the trial court shall enter
judgments to reflect sentences of eight years, for each count,
to be served consecutively.
State vs. Tony Carruthers - W2006-00376-CCA-R3-PD View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Tony Carruthers, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In April 1996, a Shelby County jury convicted the petitioner of the first degree murders of Marcellos Anderson, Delois Anderson, and Frederick Tucker and imposed a sentence of death for each conviction. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000). In December 2001, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. By order entered April 16, 2002, the supreme court appointed a Davidson County post-conviction court to preside over the case. Post-conviction counsel was appointed and an evidentiary hearing was subsequently conducted on various dates between August 29, 2005, and November 3, 2005. On February 2, 2006, the post-conviction court entered an order denying the petition. On appeal to this court, the petitioner raises issues of ineffective assistance of pretrial and appellate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Michael T. Sharp - E2006-00638-CCA-R3-CD View
Campbell County - Defendant, Michael T. Sharp,
was indicted on four counts of rape of a child, four counts
of aggravated sexual battery, four counts of incest, two counts
of sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of aggravated
sexual exploitation of a minor. Following a jury trial, Defendant
was found not guilty of the twelve counts of the indictment
involving the charges of rape of a child, aggravated sexual
battery, and incest. Defendant was found guilty of sexual exploitation
of a minor, a Class E felony, in counts thirteen and sixteen
of the indictment, and guilty of the lesser included offense
of sexual exploitation of a minor in counts fourteen and fifteen.
At the conclusion of the hearing on Defendant’s motion for new trial, the trial court dismissed Defendant’s convictions in counts thirteen and sixteen of the indictment upon finding that there was a material variance between the indictment and the evidence introduced at trial as to these counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for alternative sentencing and sentenced Defendant to two years for each conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of four years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not merging his two convictions of sexual exploitation of a minor, and that the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. The State argues on appeal that the trial court erred in dismissing counts thirteen and sixteen of the indictment. After a thorough review, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing counts thirteen and sixteen of the indictment based upon a fatal variance. However, we conclude that the charges against Defendant were multiplicitous. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss counts fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen and remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a conviction in count thirteen for the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor. In light of State v. Gomez, _____ S.W.3d _____ (Tenn. 2007), we modify Defendant’s sentence for sexual exploitation of a minor in count thirteen to one year. We affirm the trial court’s
denial of alternative sentencing.
Tom Moore, III vs. State and Warden, Virginia Lewis - E2006-02458-CCA-R3-HC View
Bledsoe County - The petitioner, Tom Moore,
III, pro se appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for
habeas corpus relief. The petitioner alleges that his original
indictment was void and defective because three separate charges
were all listed as “Count One,” thus rendering the court without jurisdiction. The petitioner’s allegations are both factually and legally incorrect. We affirm the trial court’s
summary dismissal.
Patrick Thurmond vs. Howard Carlton, Warden - E2007-00112-CCA-R3-HC View
Johnson County - The pro se petitioner, Patrick
Thurmond, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated sexual battery for which he received a total effective sentence of fifty years. In this, his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner claims that his judgments are void due to the state’s
failure to elect offenses at trial. The trial court summarily
dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim.
Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Sherman Boddie - W2007-00685-CCA-R3-CD View
Tipton County - The defendant, Sherman Boddie,
was convicted in the Tipton County Circuit Court of driving
under the influence (DUI) and DUI per se. The trial court merged
the convictions and sentenced the defendant to eleven months
and twenty-nine days, to be served on unsupervised probation
after forty-eight hours incarceration. On appeal, the defendant
argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence of his intoxication, because the sobriety roadblock
where he was stopped violated the Tennessee Constitution. We
hold that the roadblock was constitutional and affirm the trial
court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
State vs. John Hayes - W2006-02505-CCA-R3-CD View
Lauderdale County - The defendant, John Kenneth
Hayes, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000, a Class
C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four
years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues
that the trial court erred in ordering that he serve 120 days
in confinement prior to being placed on community corrections.
Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court
but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the
community corrections service of the defendant’s sentence.
State vs. Randy Mitchell - W2007-00023-CCA-R3-PC View
Dyer County - The petitioner, Randy Bernard Mitchell, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his case and for failing to fully explain the ramifications of his guilty plea. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.
State vs. Danny Ray Thornhill - E2006-02675-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - The Defendant, Danny Ray Thornhill, appeals from the order of the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In May of 2006, the Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction. His sentence was suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation. Approximately four months later, the trial court issued a violation of probation warrant. After a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation and ordered that his original three-year sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Justin Haynie, Jonathan Morris, Judson Ouzts - W2006-01840-CCA-R3-CD View
Lauderdale County- A jury convicted the Defendants,
Justin Bradley Haynie, Jonathan Anthony Morris, and Judson F.
Ouzts, of one count of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine
with the intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and one count
of possession of alprazolam with the intent to deliver, a Class
D felony. Defendants Haynie and Morris were both sentenced to
eight years and ten months for the cocaine conviction and to
a concurrent, two-year sentence for the alprazolam conviction.
Defendant Ouzts was sentenced to eight years for the cocaine
conviction; in all other regards, his sentence was the same.
Each Defendant was ordered to complete his sentence through
the Community Corrections Program after serving part of the
sentence in the county jail. In this appeal, the Defendants
collectively raise three issues: (1) whether the trial court
erred by denying the Defendants’ pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of Defendant Ouzts’s vehicle; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions; and (3) whether the State’s closing argument was improperly prejudicial. Defendant Ouzts raises two additional issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony amounting to a legal conclusion; and (2) whether a juror’s
bias required a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court on the cocaine convictions, but
we reverse the judgments entered on the alprazolam convictions
and remand for resentencing and proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Cases posted the week of 12/03/2007
Thomas Len Proffitt vs. Howard Carlton, Warden and State -
E2007-01190-CCA-R3-HC View
Johnson County - The petitioner, Thomas Len Profitt, appeals
the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his 2007 petition for habeas corpus relief. In response, the State moved this court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20 to summarily affirm the criminal court’s order. Because the record shows that the Rule 20 terms for summary affirmance are met, we grant the motion and affirm the criminal court’s
order.
State vs. Leodish Coe - W2006-02481-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Leodish Coe, pled
guilty to fourth offense driving under the influence (DUI) and reserved
a certified question of law. The question presented for review is
whether the indictment properly charged a fourth offense DUI and
whether the defendant’s present offense constitutes a fourth
offense DUI under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403. After
review, we conclude the answer to both questions is affirmative and
affirm the judgment from the trial court.
State vs. Charles and Doreen Lard - W2006-01941-CCA-R3-CD View
Tipton County - The Appellants, Charles Thomas Lard, II, and Doreen Rebeca Gates Lard, each pled guilty in the Tipton County Circuit Court to possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana with intent to deliver and to the manufacture of one-half ounce or more of marijuana, both Class E felonies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Lards reserved the following certified question for consideration by this court on appeal: whether the trial court erred in denying their respective motions to suppress evidence and statements obtained by the police after a search of their home, based upon its finding that the Lards knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search. After thorough consideration of the arguments of the parties and the record on appeal, we affirm.
State vs. Pervis Payne - W2007-01096-CCA-R3-PD View
Shelby County - In 1988, the Petitioner, Pervis
Payne, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one
count of assault with intent to commit first degree murder. For the
capital offenses, the jury imposed sentences of death. The trial
court imposed a sentence of thirty years confinement for the non-capital
conviction. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct
appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d
10 (Tenn. 1990), aff’d by, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991). The Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief which pursuit was unsuccessful. See Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State, No. 02C01-9703-CR-00131 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 15, 1998), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Jun. 8, 1998). On September 7, 2006, the Petitioner filed a motion to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the motion on March 29, 2007. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs,
we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Graves - M2006-01469-CCA-R3-CD View
Sumner County - The State appeals the trial court’s
suppression of evidence pursuant to Rule 3(c) of the Tennessee Rules
of Appellate Procedure, allowing an appeal when the substantive effect
of a ruling by the trial court is dismissal of an indictment. The
defendant, Michael W. Graves, moved to suppress evidence seized during
a search of his house. The trial judge concluded that the evidence
had been illegally seized and granted the motion to suppress. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Jose Ramirez v. State of Tennessee - M2007-00942-CCA-R3-PC View
Wilson County - The petitioner, Jose Ramirez, pled guilty to aggravated assault and the trial court, pursuant to a plea agreement, sentenced him to a three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had filed his petition outside the one-year statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Jeffrey Hopkins - W2007-00288-CCA-R3-PC View
Tipton County - The petitioner, Jeffrey Hopkins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.
State vs. Dewayne Jones - W2006-01026-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Dewayne Jones, of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony. Because the two counts alleged alternative theories of the same offense, the trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, alleging that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, including that the State did not prove venue was in Shelby County; (2) the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect which of the aggravated rape counts it wished to proceed upon; and (3) the trial court misapplied one enhancement factor. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Riaco Leverston - W2006-02304-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Riaco Leverston, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender, to ten years in prison. He appeals this judgment, contending that (1) the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police, (3) the trial court erred in admitting a photograph of the dead victim, and (4) his sentence is excessive. We conclude that no error exists, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Mario McElrath - W2006-02621-CCA-R3-CD View
Obion County - The defendant, Mario Andre McElrath,
was convicted by an Obion County jury of attempted sale of .5 grams
or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony,
and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction and a
fine of $2000. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion for a new trial based on the State’s violation of the rule of sequestration and in finding that the Drug-Free School Zone Act included criminal attempt as an offense that triggers increased sanctions. We conclude that these claims are without merit. However, based upon our plain error review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the Drug-Free School Zone Act to enhance the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s
conviction but remand for resentencing.
State vs. Mario Morris - W2006-02345-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Mario Morris, was
convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of four counts of
aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of especially
aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. After merging the four counts
of aggravated robbery into two counts, the trial court sentenced
him as a Range I, standard offender to ten years at 30% for each
of the aggravated robbery convictions and as a violent offender to
twenty years at 100% for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction.
Finding the defendant to be a dangerous offender, the trial court
ordered that each of the sentences be served consecutively for a
total effective sentence of forty years in the Department of Correction.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing.
Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
However, because the record reveals that the defendant was improperly
sentenced under the 2005 amendments to the 1989 Sentencing Act, we
remand to the trial court for resentencing.
State vs. Abdullah Morrison - W2006-02480-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Abdullah Morrison, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree murder conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert witness testimony on his diminished capacity. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.
State vs. Anthony Nichols - W2006-02706-CCA-R3-CD View
McNairy County - The defendant, Anthony Jerome Nichols,
was indicted for one count of attempted first degree murder, two
counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment.
He was convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault
and assault. The trial court merged the aggravated assault and attempted
second degree murder convictions and sentenced the defendant as a
Range I, standard offender to twelve years, and to eleven months
and twenty-nine days for the remaining assault conviction. The sentences
were set to run concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argues that
the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted
second degree murder and that the trial court abused its discretion
by enhancing his sentence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs,
the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.
State vs. Terry Norris - W2007-00594-CCA-R3-HC View
Lauderdale County - The petitioner, Terry Jamar Norris, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.
State of Tennessee v. Elmo J. Baker, Jr. - M2006-02596-CCA-R3-CD VIew
Sumner County - The defendant, Elmo J. Baker, Jr.,
appeals from the Sumner County Circuit Court’s probation revocation
for his seven-year sentence for attempted aggravated sexual battery,
a Class C felony. He claims that the trial court erred in revoking
his probationary status and ordering him to serve his sentence in
incarceration. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion,
and we affirm its judgment.
Tammy Hicks v. State of Tennessee - M2006-01297-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The petitioner, Tammy Hicks, appeals
from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims on appeal that she was entitled to relief based upon (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea, and that the court erred in limiting her cross-examination of counsel on the subject of legal research performed by counsel in the course of representing the petitioner. We hold that the petitioner has not demonstrated error in the trial court’s
rulings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. Heath Alan Womble - M2006-02383-CCA-R3-CD View
Moore County - The defendant, Heath Alan Womble, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell a schedule II drug, a class B felony, possession with the intent to sell a schedule III drug, a class D felony, and possession of a schedule IV drug, a class A misdemeanor, and received an effective total sentence of nine years and six months. The trial court denied his application for alternative sentencing and ordered that his sentence be served in confinement. He appeals the manner of service of his sentence, particularly the denial of community corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. Bryant Guartos - M2003-03073-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - This case is before the court
upon the United States Supreme Court’s remand for further consideration of the sentences imposed in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). Guartos v. Tennessee, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1250 (2007). We hold that the trial court applied enhancement factors which were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. However, we are unable to conduct a de novo review of the defendant’s sentences because the trial court did not make specific findings relative to the state’s proof of the defendant’s prior criminal convictions. We reverse the defendant’s
judgments for especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery,
and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and remand for resentencing.
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lamont Moss, Jr. - M2006-00890-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - A Davidson County Criminal Court
grand jury indicted the defendant, Robert Lamont Moss, Jr., of two
counts of aggravated kidnapping, see T.C.A. § 39-13-304 (2006), one count of aggravated sexual battery, see id. § 39-13-504, one count of aggravated rape, see id. § 39-13-502, and one count of theft of property, see id. § 39-14-103. The trial judge dismissed the aggravated sexual battery count, and the jury convicted the defendant of the remaining counts. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 17 years. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification of the defendant, (2) the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about prior drug use, and (3) the trial court erred in enhancing three of the defendant’s
convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. Ronald B. Rogers - M2006-01339-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - Ronald B. Rogers, the defendant,
was convicted of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class E felony;
theft over $10,000, a Class C felony; vandalism over $500, a Class
E felony; and criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. The
defendant received an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal,
the defendant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support
the guilty verdicts; (2) the trial court erred in granting the State
a continuance; (3) the trial court erred in sentencing; and (4) the
trial court erred in instructing the jury on the permissible inference
from “flight.” After review, we affirm the convictions
and sentences.
State vs. Jason D. Walker - E2006-01422-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - Defendant, Jason D. Walker, appeals
the trial court’s revocation of his probation in case numbers
C-13500 and C-15417, arguing that there was insufficient evidence
to find that Defendant had willfully violated the terms of his probation.
After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Napoleon James Moore, Alias - E2007-00426-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County - The Defendant, Napoleon James Moore (alias), pled guilty to and was convicted of attempted possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony. In accordance with his plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years in the Department of Correction. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the discretion of the trial court. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying probation. Following our review, we affirm the sentence of confinement ordered by the trial court.
State vs. Michael D. Boon - E2006-02320-CCA-R3-CD View
Hamilton County - Following a bench trial, Defendant, Michael D. Boon, was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, to be suspended after serving forty-eight hours in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and contends that the admission of certain testimony violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Ricky Jerome Harris vs. State - E2005-00566-CCA-R3-PC View
Carter County - Petitioner, Ricky Jerome Harris,
filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. He based his petition
on two items of allegedly newly discovered evidence, the first being
an anonymous letter, which included a copy of previously undisclosed
interview notes with a potential alibi witness, and the second being
a letter, signed with the name “Bill,” confessing to the killing of the victim. Petitioner also filed a petition for relief requesting DNA analysis on certain pieces of evidence. The lower court summarily dismissed the writ of error coram nobis claims because they did not involve newly discovered evidence. The lower court ruled Petitioner had prior knowledge of the alibi witness because he had aided her when she had car trouble and because Petitioner raised the “letter from Bill” in a previous post-conviction petition. The lower court summarily dismissed the DNA petition finding it was not a proper claim for writ of error coram nobis relief. We conclude: (1) that the lower court erred in summarily dismissing the petition with regard to the alibi witness, and we remand for a hearing; (2) that the lower court was incorrect in summarily dismissing the petition for writ of error coram nobis with regard to the “letter from Bill,” and we remand for a hearing; and (3) we affirm, on other grounds, the lower court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s
request for DNA testing. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in
part and remand for further proceedings by the lower court.
State vs. Steven Allen Jones - E2006-01952-CCA-R3-CD View
Carter County - Following a jury trial Defendant, Steven Allen Jones, was found guilty of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder and (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the punishment for first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Lorenzo Herron v. State of Tennessee - M2007-00696-CCA-R3-HC View
Wayne County - Petitioner, Lorenzo Herron, was sentenced
to life in prison following a conviction for first degree murder
in 1989. Both Petitioner’s direct appeal and appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief were unsuccessful. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. In his petition, he argued that his indictment was fatally defective. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed his petition. He now appeals this dismissal. Having reviewed the record in his appeal, we conclude that the indictment was constitutionally sufficient to inform Petitioner of the crime with which he was indicted and vest jurisdiction in the trial court. For this reason, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s
dismissal of his petition.
Gary Aldridge v. State of Tennessee - M2007-01268-CCA-R3-HC View
Wayne County - The Appellant, Gary Aldridge, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Daniel L. Shields v. State of Tennessee, Ricky Bell, Warden - M2007-01407-CCA-R3-HC View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Daniel L. Shields,
appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s
motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee - M2006-01831-CCA-R3-HC View
(Separate dissenting/concurring opinion filed by Witt, Jr., J.) View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Paul Tobias Davis, appeals
the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In his petition,
the Petitioner asserted that his sentence is illegal because he was denied
pretrial jail credits. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition
because the petition did not state a sufficient reason for not being filed
in the county nearest to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner raises
two issues: (1) whether a motion filed in the habeas corpus court to alter
or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil
Procedure can operate to limit the jurisdiction of this Court; and (2) whether
the fact that the convicting court possesses relevant records relating to
a petitioner’s sentence and retains the authority to correct an illegal
sentence at anytime is a sufficient reason under Tennessee Code Annotated
section 29-21-105 to file a habeas corpus petition in the convicting court
rather than the court closest in point of distance to a petitioner. Following
our review, we hold that motions filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure do not effect the jurisdiction of this Court in
actions for habeas corpus relief and that the Petitioner presented a sufficient
reason for filing his petition in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Accordingly,
we reverse the judgment of the habeas corpus court and remand for the appointment
of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
James Polk v. State of Tennessee - M2006-02487-CCA-R3-PC View
Maury County - Petitioner, James Polk, appeals from the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief. Because Petitioner has presented this Court an inadequate brief and has improperly attempted to seek post-conviction relief in a case for the second time, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
Cases posted the week of 11/26/2007
State vs. Carlos Bush - W2005-02479-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - Appellant, Carlos Bush, was convicted by
a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. As a result, Appellant was sentenced
to serve fifteen years in incarceration as a Range II multiple offender.
After the denial of a motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal,
Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence
is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the photographic lineup
was unduly suggestive; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness
to testify regarding Appellant’s prior incarceration; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court improperly refused to grant a recess to allow Appellant to prepare curative measures for alleged evidentiary errors; and (6) whether the trial court improperly enhanced Appellant’s sentence by applying an enhancement factor that was not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the photographic lineup was proper and that the trial court did not improperly admit hearsay or statements about Appellant’s prior incarceration. With regard to Appellant’s sentence, we determine that review of the issue is not necessary to do substantial justice, and consequently, that no plain error was committed on the part of the trial court. Further, the application of enhancement factors (1) and (16) justified the enhancement of Appellant’s
sentence from twelve years to fifteen years. Accordingly, the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Marquette Milan - W2006-01408-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant was convicted by a Shelby
County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder,
and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged
the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life in prison
for first degree murder and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery,
with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends
that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two witnesses, a
forensic psychologist and the defendant’s mother, who would have offered testimony regarding the defendant’s ability to form the requisite culpable mental state. The defendant also contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the two witnesses, and that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s
convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Arthur Buford - W2006-00346-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Arthur Buford, appeals from
the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202. He was sentenced to two life sentences to be served consecutively. The petitioner contends the trial court erred in denying him post-conviction relief based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that no error exists and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
State vs. Courtney Partin - E2004-02998-CCA-R3-CD View
Campbell County - This case is before the court upon the
United States Supreme Court’s remand for further consideration of the sentences imposed in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). Partin v. Tennessee, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1240 (2007). We hold that the trial court applied enhancement factors which were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of the defendant’s
Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Because the error was not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse the judgments and remand for resentencing.
State of Tennessee v. Leslie Raydell Jones - M2006-01829-CCA-R3-CD View
Bedford County - The defendant, Leslie Raydell Jones, appeals
as of right his convictions in the Bedford County Circuit Court for first
degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated burglary. He received
sentences of life and twelve years as a Range I, standard offender, respectively,
to be served consecutively. On appeal, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient
to support his convictions and that the convictions are based upon the perjured
testimony of several witnesses. Following our review, we conclude that no
error exists with respect to the defendant’s allegations. However, we further conclude that the defendant’s
conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be modified to reflect
a conviction for aggravated burglary because an especially aggravated burglary
conviction is precluded by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d);
the case shall also be remanded for sentencing.
Rodney R. Rye v. State of Tennessee - M2006-02668-CCA-R3-PC View
Montgomery County - The petitioner, Rodney R. Rye, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of child rape, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and his resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. He contends that he entered guilty pleas that were unknowing and involuntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment.
Jacob Edward Campbell v. State of Tennessee - M2006-02727-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The Appellant, Jacob Edward Campbell, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. After a jury trial in 2002, Campbell was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery, and he was ordered to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and ten years. On appeal, Campbell argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties, we affirm.
State of Tennessee v. William Bertrane Francis, Jr. - M2006-02177-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The defendant, William B. Francis, Jr.,
originally charged with first degree premeditated murder, was convicted of
second degree murder and sentenced to 25 years’ incarceration. In
this appeal, he asserts (1) that the trial court erred by admitting certain
evidence, (2) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight,
and (3) that the sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Randy Lee Shatto, Sr. v. State of Tennessee - M2007-00054-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Morris LaMonte Marsh v. State of Tennessee - M2007-00432-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - This matter is before the Court upon the
State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief based on its untimeliness. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the post-conviction court was correct and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s
motion is granted and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. Marlon Duane Kiser - E2005-02406-CCA-R3-DD View
Hamilton County - Following a change of venire, a Davidson
County jury convicted the appellant, Marlon Duane Kiser, in the Hamilton
County Criminal Court of first degree premeditated murder and two counts
of first degree felony murder. After a sentencing hearing, the jury found
that the State had proved the following aggravating circumstance: The murder
was committed against a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance
of official duties, and the appellant knew or reasonably should have known
that such victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance
of official duties. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(9). Upon further finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the appellant to death for each conviction. On appeal, the appellant claims that (1) his right to an impartial jury was violated by the trial court's failure to excuse incompetent jurors for cause; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to excuse for cause jurors who would not consider mitigating evidence; (3) the prosecution used peremptory challenges to excuse jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986); (4) the trial court erred by failing to a hold a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of proposed expert scientific testimony; (5) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (6) the trial court erred by permitting testimony regarding statements made by the appellant regarding his alleged hostility toward police and willingness to kill; (7) the trial court erred by limiting the appellant's proof; (8) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of another person's alleged confession to the victim's murder; (9) the jury instructions on "reasonable doubt" were
unconstitutional; (10) the appellant's waiver of rights at the sentencing
hearing was unconstitutional; (11) the trial court erroneously denied the
appellant's requested instruction on residual doubt; (12) the jury was required
to unanimously agree to a life sentence in violation of established case
law; (13) Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.3(b) violates principles
of due process and the principles announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530
U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), and its progeny; (14) the prosecution is
vested with unlimited discretion as to whether to seek the death penalty;
(15) the death penalty was imposed in a discriminatory manner; (16) the cumulative
effect of the errors at trial violated his due process rights; (17) the statutory
capital sentencing scheme in this state fails to articulate or apply meaningful
standards for proportionality review in violation of his due process rights;
and (18) lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is
unconstitutional in this state. Upon review of the record and the parties
briefs, we conclude that the appellant is not entitled to relief and affirm
the judgments of conviction but remand the case to the trial court in order
for the court to enter only one judgment of conviction for first degree murder.
State vs. Clifton Dechance Harrison - E2007-00344-CCA-R3-CD View
Sullivan County - The defendant, Clifton Dechance Harrison,
pleaded guilty to three counts of selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a
school, Class B felonies, see T.C.A. § 39-17-417(a)(3), -432(b) (2003); three counts of selling more than .5 grams of cocaine, Class B felonies, see id. § 39-17-417(a)(3), (c)(1); and one count of selling cocaine, a Class C felony, see id. § 39-17-417(a)(3), (c)(2). Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, the defendant received an effective sentence of 20 years. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s
denial of alternative sentencing, and we affirm. The case must be remanded
to the trial court, however, for correction of numerous errors in the judgments.
State vs. Carl Johnson - W2006-01805-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The Appellant, Carl Johnson, appeals the
order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction
relief. Johnson, who was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, is currently
serving a sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction.
Following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal, Johnson filed
a petition for post-conviction relief alleging numerous instances of ineffective
assistance of counsel, which was denied. On appeal, this court remanded the
case for an evidentiary hearing “solely on the petitioner’s complaint of the ineffective assistance of counsel regarding lesser-included offense instructions and Owens.” Following an evidentiary hearing, during which Johnson challenged only trial counsel’s
failure to request that aggravated assault be charged as a lesser-included
offense of especially aggravated robbery, the post-conviction court again
denied relief finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing
to request the lesser charge. In the instant appeal, Johnson challenges the
denial of relief. Following a review of the record and the law applicable
at the time of trial, we find no reversible error and affirm the denial of
post-conviction relief.
Edward Allen Hudson vs. State - E2006-00643-CCA-R3-HC View
Sullivan County - Petitioner, Edward Allen Hudson, appeals
the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief
attacking his conviction for rape of a child. Upon review of the record
and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to
all issues not pertaining to Petitioner’s sentence. The trial court recognized that Petitioner’s sentence was improper and ordered that the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) be notified; however, the court did not enter an amended judgment. We conclude, as to Petitioner’s
sentence, that habeas corpus relief from the illegal sentence should be
granted. We remand this cause to the Sullivan County Criminal Court for
entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.
Paul Welcome vs. State - E2006-02022-CCA-R3-PC View
Knox County - The petitioner, Paul Welcome, appeals the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. He asserts he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he is entitled to relief based upon newly discovered evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Derrick Settles - W2006-02350-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The Defendant, Derrick Settles, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of possession of over .5 ounces of marijuana with the intent to sell. The jury sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for one murder conviction, and the trial court ordered a consecutive life sentence for the other. The trial court also merged the possession offenses into a single conviction and imposed a concurrent sentence of one year for that conviction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of his apartment and his confession because he lacked the intellectual capacity to validly consent to the search or effectively waive the rights guaranteed him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Terry Lynn Byington vs. State - E2006-01712-CCA-R3-PC View
Sullivan County - Petitioner, Terry Lynn Byington, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case to allow Petitioner a delayed appeal, provided he files a motion for new trial within thirty days of the issuance of the mandate in the case. Counsel in this appeal is appointed to represent Petitioner in the delayed appeal.
Terry Lynn Byington vs. State - E2006-02069-CCA-R3-CD View
Sullivan County - Defendant, Terry Lynn Byington,
was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of DUI, fourth offense, and
received a Range II, multiple offender, sentence of three years in
the Department of Correction. In his initial direct appeal, a panel
of this court affirmed, addressing issues relating to the sufficiency
of the evidence and sentencing. However, this Court held that two
other issues were waived because Defendant’s
motion for new trial was untimely filed. See State v. Terry Lynn
Byington, No. E2003-02316-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1606993 (Tenn. Crim.
App., at Knoxville, July 19, 2004) perm. to app. denied (Tenn., Dec.
28, 2004). Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief,
and the trial court granted the petition insofar as ordering a delayed
appeal after giving Defendant the opportunity to present a timely
motion for new trial. T.C.A. §§ 40-30-111(a) and 40-30-113(a).
See Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003). Defendant has
now again appealed from his conviction raising two issues: (1) the
trial judge erred by declining to recuse herself from Defendant’s
trial, and (2) the trial court erred by permitting the State to impeach
Defendant’s testimony with his prior perjury conviction. Because
there is no order in the record that the motion for new trial was
denied, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
Jerry Lynn Hopson vs. Jack Morgan, Warden,
and State - E2006-00625-CCA-R3-HC View
Morgan County - The petitioner, Jerry
Lynn Hopson, through counsel, appeals from the trial
court’s order denying his petition for writ
of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting
that this court affirm the trial court’s denial
of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish
a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly,
the state's motion is granted and the judgment of
the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Marvin Matthews - W2007-00295-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Marvin
Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition
for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting
that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20,
Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that
the petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred, we
affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
State vs. Marvin Matthews - W2007-00936-CCA-R3-HC View
Lauderdale County - The petitioner, Marvin
Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s
denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion
requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule
20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the
petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief
may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
State vs. Marcus Terry
aka Torian Benson - W2006-01802-CCA-R3-HC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Torian Benson, appeals
the lower court’s denial of
his petition for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting
that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the petitioner has failed
to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm
the trial court’s dismissal.
State vs. Michael Smith - W2007-00320-CCA-R3-HC View
Hardeman County - The petitioner, Michael W. Smith, appeals
the lower court’s denial
of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting
that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to allege any ground
that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court’s dismissal.
State vs. Michael Ware - W2007-00186-CCA-R3-HC View
Lake County - The petitioner, Michael Ware, appeals the
lower court’s denial of
his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting
that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to allege any ground
that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court’s dismissal.
Cases posted the week of 11/19/2007
Rodney Buford vs. State - M2006-02750-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - A jury convicted petitioner
of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary.
Petitioner’s
appeal to this Court was unsuccessful. Petitioner filed a pro se petition
for post-conviction relief
which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed for failure to
state a colorable claim. The State
concedes that petitioner did state a colorable claim, and we agree.
Therefore, we reverse the postconviction
court’s summary dismissal and remand for further proceedings
in accordance with this
opinion.
State vs. Kenneth C. Dailey, III - M2007-01874-CCA-RM-CD View
Davidson County - The defendant, Kenneth C. Dailey, III,
pled guilty to second degree murder and reserved a certified
question of law regarding the admissibility of his statements of confession
to the crime. In our initial
review, this court concluded that the certified question was not dispositive
of the case. Our supreme
court held that the certified question was dispositive of the case and
reversed and remanded to our
court for review of the certified question on its merits. After careful
review, we conclude that the
evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding
that the defendant was not in custody
at the time he made his incriminating statement. We affirm the judgment
from the trial court.
State vs. Katia Lenee Harris a/k/a Fuzzy - M2006-02611-CCA-R3-CD View
(Concur) - View
Marshall County - The defendant, Katia Lenee
Harris a/k/a Fuzzy, pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery.
The
trial court sentenced her to ten years confinement based on
the application of three enhancement
factors. On appeal, the efendant contends the trial court erred
when sentencing her. We conclude
the trial court erred in enhancing the defendant’s sentence
based on enhancement factors (1) and
(10). Thus, we modify the defendant’s sentence to nine
years.
State vs. William Earl Robinson - M2007-00233-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The defendant, William Earl
Robinson, pled guilty to one count of rape, a Class B felony,
and was sentenced to eight years in confinement. His sentence
was suspended and he was placed on
probation with credit for time served. The defendant was subsequently
arrested for violation of
probation. Following a hearing, his probation was revoked and
he was remanded into custody for
the remainder of his original sentence. The defendant appeals
the revocation of his probation and
argues that the trial court erred by placing his entire sentence
into effect. We affirm the decision of
the trial court.
Marshall Donnell Johnson vs. State - M2006-02281-CCA-R3-PC View
Rutherford County - The petitioner, Marshall
Donnell Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by finding
that he received effective assistance
of trial counsel and entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily.
Following our review, we
affirm the denial of the petition.
State vs. Pamela Sue Goetz - M2007-00491-CCA-R3-CD
View
Bedford County - The defendant, Pamela Sue
Goetz, was indicted by a Bedford County Grand Jury for thirty
counts of forgery under alternative theories of executing and
passing fifteen forged checks. She pled guilty
to all forgery counts and, as a result, received a total effective
sentence of four years and six months
to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues
that the trial court erred by denying
her alternative sentencing. Following our review of the parties’ briefs,
the record, and applicable
law, we hold that the trial court did not err and affirm that
court’s judgments.
Kenneth Campbell vs. State - M2006-02730-CCA-R3-CO
View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Kenneth Campbell, appeals the trial court’s
denial of his pro se petition for a writ of
error coram nobis and, in the alternative, motion to reopen
his post-conviction petition. The State
has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial
court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule
20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find that the
State’s motion has merit. Accordingly,
the motion is granted, and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to
Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
State vs. Beverly Diane Bean - M2006-02308-CCA-R3-CD
View
Franklin County - A Franklin County Circuit
Court grand jury indicted the defendant, Beverly Diane Bean,
of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class
A misdemeanor, see T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401, - 403(a)(1)
(2004); DUI, see id. § 55-10-401; violating the implied
consent law, see id. § 55-10-406;
and reckless driving, see id. § 55-10-205. The jury convicted
the defendant of DUI, count one, and reckless driving, count four.
The trial court found the defendant guilty of third offense DUI,
see id. § 55-10-403(a)(1), count two. The trial
court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of 11 months
and 29 days, six months to be served in the county jail and the
remainder on supervised probation, and the court imposed a fine
of $1,100. On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient
evidence to support the DUI conviction and that the trial court’s
sentence was excessive.
We hold the evidence sufficient and uphold the sentence. However, we remand for
correction of the judgments.
State vs. Dennis Eddins - M2006-02315-CCA-R3-CD
View
Lincoln County - The defendant, Dennis Eddins,
was convicted of extortion, see T.C.A. § 39-14-112, and
the trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be served as
six months’ incarceration
followed by community
corrections. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the
State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct
and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment
of acquittal following the close
of the State’s proof. Because the evidence was insufficient
to support the conviction, the judgment
of the trial court is reversed and the charge is dismissed.
Terry Lewis vs. State - M2007-01616-CCA-R3-HC
View
Wayne County - This matter is before the Court
upon the State’s motion
to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the
judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Rule 20, Rules of the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has appealed the trial court’s
order dismissing his petition for habeas
corpus relief in which petitioner alleged that the district
attorney’s closing argument illegally
amended the indictment; that count three of the indictment was
constructively amended because the
jury was allowed to convict him on a factual basis that effectively
modified an element of the
charged offense; and that the indictment for robbery did not
cite a statute. Upon a review of the
record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was
correct in dismissing the petition for
habeas corpus relief without a hearing and without appointment
of counsel and that this case meets
the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals.
Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
Paul Graham Manning vs State - M2005-02876-CCA-R3-PC
View
Dekalb County - Petitioner, Paul Graham Manning,
was convicted of first degree pre-meditated murder and felony
reckless endangerment. He appeals the trial court’s denial
of his petition for post-conviction relief.
On appeal, petitioner argues that he is entitled to post-conviction
relief because various
constitutional rights were violated before, during and after
trial, and that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at all stages of the proceedings. After
a thorough review of the record, we
affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Billy Merle Meeks vs. Ricky J. Bell, Warden -
M2005-00626-CCA-R3-HC View
Davidson County - Petitioner, Billy Merle Meeks,
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, attacking his convictions
for aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, especially
aggravated burglary, and
extortion. He was convicted in August 1990, received an effective
sentence of thirty-nine (39) years
after partial consecutive sentencing, and filed his habeas corpus
petition in 2004. The petition was
dismissed and this Court affirmed. Billy Merle Meeks v. Ricky
J. Bell, Warden, No. M2005-00626-
CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 3504665 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville,
Dec. 22, 2005) perm. app.
denied (Tenn. May 1, 2006) (Meeks I). On petition for writ of
certiorari, the United States Supreme
Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment of this Court,
and remanded this case for further
consideration in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S.
_____ 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). Counsel
was appointed for petitioner and the parties were ordered to
file additional briefs in light of the
remand. Following review of the record and the arguments of
petitioner and the State, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition for writ
of habeas corpus.
State vs. Audra Lynn Johnson - M2007-00824-CCA-R3-CD
View
Montgomery County - The appellant, Audra Lynn
Johnson, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s
denial of the
Motion for Return of Funds she filed in an attempt to have the
Board of Probation and Parole
reimburse her for probation fees she paid before this court
reversed her conviction for reckless
homicide. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs,
we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
State vs. Edward Armstrong - W2007-00703-CCA-R3-PC View
Dyer County - The petitioner, Edward Ray
Armstrong, appeals as of right from the judgment of the
Dyer County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief.
In 2006, the petitioner pled guilty as a Range I, standard
offender to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but
less than $10,000, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing
hearing, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence.
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective
assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s
failure to subpoena his medical records and to adequately prepare
for trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment
of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Robert Lee Day - E2006-02609-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - The defendant, Robert Lee Day,
appeals the Blount County Circuit Court’s
revocation of his two-year probation. The defendant claims the trial
court lacked grounds for ordering revocation. Finding no abuse of discretion,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. George Arthur Lee Smith, Nathaniel
("Nat") Allen,
and Shannon Lee Jarnigan - E2006-00984-CCA-R3-CD View
Hamblen County - A Hamblen County jury convicted
each defendant of one count of first degree premeditated murder
and each was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the defendants
contend the following: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain
their convictions; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain
the jury’s finding that Hamblen County
was a proper venue for this case; (3) the trial court erred when
it denied the defendants’ motion for change of venue; (4)
the trial court erred when it consolidated the defendants’ cases
for trial; (5) the trial court improperly accepted the State’s
peremptory challenges of two potential jurors; (6) the trial court
improperly allowed a juror to remain on the panel when the juror
should have been disqualified for actual bias or prejudice; (7) the
trial court improperly admitted an audio recording of a conversation
between Defendants Smith and Jarnigan; and (8) the trial court improperly
admitted evidence about Defendant Allen’s prior criminal charge
for delivery of cocaine. Finding that there exists no error, we affirm
the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. John William Matkin, III - E2005-02946-CCA-R3-CD
View
Sevier County - The defendant, John William
Matkin, III, was convicted by a Sevier County Circuit Court
jury of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and was sentenced
as a Range I, standard offender to serve six years in the Department
of Correction. In this appeal, he claims that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court
committed reversible error with respect to the jury instructions,
and that he was improperly sentenced. Upon review, we hold that the
defendant is not entitled to relief and affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
State vs. Andreco Boone - W2006-01646-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Andreco
Boone, appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery, a
Class B felony. He contends that the evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction and that the trial court improperly
admitted a photo spread during the trial. After careful
review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court.
State vs. Darnell
Welch - W2007-00290-CCA-R3-PC View
Tipton County - The petitioner, Darnell Lavelle Welch,
appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective
assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and the
parties’ briefs,
the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief
is affirmed.
State vs. Sean Williams - W2006-00640-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Sean Williams, was
convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief and alleged
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, which
was denied by the post-conviction court following a hearing. On appeal,
he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition
and specifically contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to secure a jury instruction for facilitation. After review, we conclude
that trial counsel was not ineffective, and we affirm the judgment
from the post-conviction court.
Cases posted the week of 11/12/2007
State vs. James Taylor Jr. - W2006-02085-CCA-R3-CD View
Lauderdale County - The defendant, James Taylor,
Jr., was found guilty by a Lauderdale County jury of aggravated
assault (Class C felony) and assault (Class A misdemeanor). He
was sentenced to six years for his aggravated assault conviction
and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for his assault conviction.
On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient
to support either of his convictions; (2) the trial court erred
in failing to dismiss the aggravated assault indictment because
it did not allege the type of deadly weapon used by the defendant;
(3) the trial court should have excluded testimony that the defendant
was the subject of a restraining order; and (4) his sentence was
improper. After review, we conclude that no reversible error exists
and affirm the judgments from the trial court.
State vs. Christopher Carter - W2006-02124-CCA-R3-CD View
Dissenti